Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6666188" data-attributes="member: 6683613">That's not what you asked.  In fact, if I were going to be pedantic about this, I'd note that you weren't asking a question at all.  Your words were, "None of these reasons for going into the wild would necessarily lead to one becoming a Ranger."What I was objecting to was your use of "coincidence".  It's not coincidental that the ranger class is correlated with people ranging, because there is a clear semantic connection there.  It is coincidental that the ranger class is correlated with people hating a particular enemy, because the assignment of that ability to this class is arbitrary.Not every burglar is a rogue, not every soldier is a fighter, and not every woodsman is a ranger.  The PC classes are generally interpreted as representing an "elite" version of those skillsets.  They don't need to have a qualitatively different defining ability -- they're just better at what they do.Besides, some campaigns may indeed use the rogue class for all burglars and so on.  And who are we to tell those DMs they are wrong?*chuckle*  I think you know as well as I that this line of argument is just <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=silly&searchmode=none" target="_blank">silly</a>.We can discuss the ranger class in terms of its literary archetypal antecedents, or not.  But it's just a waste of time if you're going to use this line as a get-out-of-argument-free card in lieu of a substantial reply.  Either Eärendil is relevant or he isn't.  You can't have it both ways.Why should the game make every ranger character go through this rationalization process?I agree.  This is precisely why I don't want a class to have an ability that  puts characterization in a straightjacket.Those are skillsets, not motivations.  There's nothing saying a fighter has to like fighting, or an assassin killing; they're just good at it.  But your position from the beginning has been that the ranger hates his favored enemy.Sure.  Just like a rogue has to have abilities so he can't be represented just as easily by a fighter with stealth skills.  And a fighter has to have abilities so she can't be represented just as easily by a commoner with weapon proficiencies.  The key is that the rogue and fighter get abilities that are derived from the archetype they represent.  A rogue's abilities augment his stealth and trickery, because that's what archetypal rogues do.  A fighter's abilities augment her toughness and armed combat, because that's what archetypal fighters do.  You wouldn't arbitrarily say, "The rogue needs to be more distinctive, so let's give him eye lasers!  No other class has that!"  Roguish characters in other media are not defined by having eye lasers.  (Except in that one game.)Similarly, a ranger's abilities should augment his survival skills, because that's what archetypal rangers do.  If you were writing the ranger class for the first time today, with no knowledge of D&D history, you wouldn't arbitrarily say, "Let's give the ranger racial hatred!"  Because ranger characters in other media are not defined by having racial hatred.</blockquote>

Verification